4/3/09

NY Times is late for April Fools Day?

What should be avoided in all of them is any hint of racist, sexist or religious bias,or any suggestion of nasty, snide, sarcastic, or condescending tone — “snark.”Ifsomething could easily fit in a satirical Web site for young adults, it probably shouldn’t go into the news pages of nytimes.com. Our ethics code promises that in all dealings with readers, “civility applies.”

A quote from my application cover page:

“It has always been my dream to work alongside the great snark writers of our time. Judy Miller, Bill Kristol, Joe Klein, David Broder, Gordon Smith, and a long list of the many leaders in snark that grace the pages of the NY Times on a regular basis. Sadly, they are all so good at what they do that their snark is seriously misunderstood by the unwashed masses, who honestly think they should be taking those writers seriously.

I know the NY Times are a little shy when it comes to admitting this fact, but it is truly award winning high brow snark, indeed. The void I would hope to fill is in providing the everyman's snark so the little people can begin to understand that the Op Eds or articles printed in jest in the NY Times, and clearly misunderstood by the readers, should never be used to justify wars or for making any serious policy decisions at all. It is, after all, only printed in one of the many infotainment sections.”

4 comments:

In a just world they would have cleaned house for their failures in the free market of ideas. In a business free market they would have cleaned house in order to regain any sense of journalistic integrity in the hopes selling papers.

I desperately want to help some of these newspapers (NY Times, Hartford Courant) since I do recognize a need to have the coverage. BUT I can not see subsidizing the kind of right wing junk corporate journalism they fill their paper with in order to get just a few meager scrapings from within their folds.

Blogrolling Policy -This is a liberal blog and I have a liberal Blogrolling policy. I will add anyone to my Blogroll who adds me to theirs, whether conservative, liberal, moderate, libertarian, or even non-political, with the exception of spam blogs... If you Blogroll me and notice that I have not returned the favor, nudge me in the comments here until I notice!

Larry Craig and David Vitter — “two United States Senators implicated in extramarital sexual activity” — have named themselves as co-sponsors of S.J. Res. 43, the Marriage Protection Amendment. If passed, the bill would amend the Constitution to declare that marriage “shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.”